> The only thing that matters is if LLMs with sufficient scaling can become frontier AI researchers kicking off the exponential.

I think we know the answer to that already - LLMs show no sign of improving intelligence and instead providers are going down the ‘agentic’ rabbit hole.

There are too many things missing, like a world model, understanding, and taste (in the sense of knowing what is good and what is not good).

▲

openquery 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> LLMs show no sign of improving intelligence and instead providers are going down the ‘agentic’ rabbit hole.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. I don't work at Anthropic but Fable (Mythos) seems demonstrably smarter than Opus for pretty much any definition of smarter and they claim that Opus was used heavily in Mythos development (yeah I know take this with a massive pinch of salt).

Either way if the models are indeed helping development, even on the engineering, you can iterate on models faster and even if they're not contributing to core research yet you still have a baby exponential by improving the engineering.

	▲	bigstrat2003 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Anthropic's claims about their own products have almost zero value as evidence. They have lied to our faces about stuff before, and will again if it drives the hype cycle which delivers them money.

▲

QuercusMax an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

As long as LLMs don't understand the different between regurgitating facts and making up stories, they're going to necessarily be limited.

	▲	fancyfredbot an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They are taught the difference through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Pretending you've solved the task or making up a story about how you solved it won't do well in that training step.